Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) does not support the Levin-Reid amendment nor can anyone in his.

[sinkingfeeling]

office spell the Majority Leader's name!

http://pryor.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=279225&

Statement by Senator Mark Pryor On the Levin-Reed Iraq Amendment


I have serious concerns that a public timetable will incite Iraqi insurgents, put our troops in danger and undercut flexibility for commanders on the ground. For this reason, I oppose even the arbitrary timetable set forth by the Levin-Reed amendment. This amendment, while calling for withdrawal of troops, leaves an ambiguous “limited presence” behind for force protection, training and equipping Iraqi Security Forces. No one can define if this limited presence is a significant reduction in forces or a slight reduction of what we have on the ground now.


President Bush has failed to provide our troops with a plan to turn over responsibility to the Iraqi people and bring them home. Therefore, Republicans and Democrats must step in and stop trying to outmaneuver one another to score political points so that the Senate can be part of a solution. That’s why I favor an up-or-down vote on this amendment. The Senate must move past this stalemate and return to work on the Defense Authorization bill. Part of this debate should include a vote on a bipartisan amendment I support to implement the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. This comprehensive plan provides a more responsible alternative to get the U.S. out of the combat business and into the support, training and equipping business.

[EST]

1. I hate to be the one to pour ice water on your outrage, but the

Levin-Reed amendment refers to senator Jack Reed (D-RI), not senator Harry Reid (D-Nevada).

[sinkingfeeling]

6. Sorry, the first time this was up, it was the Levin-Reid amendment.

http://www.senate.gov/~levin/newsroom/release.cfm?id=274405

WASHINGTON – Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said the following today regarding his announcement that he would withdraw the Levin-Reid Iraq amendment:

“The purpose of our amendment was to reiterate the Senate position that we should begin the withdrawal of our forces from Iraq within 120 days as a way to pressure the Iraqi leaders to reach a political settlement and to recognize their responsibility for their own country. The amendment included authority for the President to waive the requirement to begin this withdrawal in an effort to avoid a veto.

“The White House indicated to me yesterday that they opposed our amendment even though it included waiver authority for the President. In addition, some of our colleagues interpreted this waiver as a weakening of the original Senate position included in the Supplemental Appropriations Act vetoed by the President, which I do not want to do.

“Since our amendment would not have accomplished the purpose of avoiding a presidential veto, Senator Reid and I decided to withdraw it.”

[lazer47]

2. Mark Pryor knows his time is up, and he has got to find a job

in Washington for a way to make a living, because coming back home won't do him any good, he knows that he just isn't what his Dad wanted him to become.

[monmouth]

3. Dubya's dad feels the same way.....

[TwilightGardener]

4. Sad that we finally have 3 Repubs solidly on board with a binding

timetable, and now Dems jump ship. I'm sure Ben Nelson is the same way. What asses! No better than the WINO's. This means Levin-Reed probably wouldn't have passed, because Collins said she didn't support it, although she voted for cloture. That would leave us with...50?

[Mass]

5. Actually, Pryor's office is right. It is not Harry Reid, but Jack Reed (RI).

For the rest, what do you expect of Pryor?